April 11, 2014

Gun Control, Democratic Hammers & The Marginal Police State

Somebody asked:

In conversations about gun control, some gun control opponents claim that gun control policies will lead America to become a police state. This is generally phrased as a slippery slope to fascism, instead of a plausible explanation for how such a transformation would come about out of our current political environment. I am interested in hearing in concrete terms how gun control regulations would lead to a police state.

This is a difficult one, but one that can be understood in the marginal case. This is not a proof, but an illustration.

First look to the questions by people here in Quora about various angles on gun control you will find 'Why not' questions about law that is already settled. For example, people are asking, why not make bullets illegal instead of guns (or restrict bullets). People have asked, why not make it illegal to be drunk when using a firearm. Already settled. A big question on many minds are means testing for mental illness.

Let's take that last item. But first recall that what we see are the basic energies of political activism. People ask not only because they want answers but they believe, and reasonably so, all things that aren't settled in their minds might become part of a change in policy and in law. In other words, there is a general assumption that more public debate resulting in more regulation can make more sense or people more safe. It is a fundamental assumption of gun control - that there is something you can do with the law through the power and force of the state - that you can change other people's behavior for the better. Notice how this takes the almost singular form of democratic political activism and law, not intellectual persuasion, not social motivation, not religious doctrine, not transcendental discipline.

In other words, those people who want a safer world see democratic political activism and the force of law through the aegis of government as their hammer. And let's not kid ourselves, they don't intend to deregulate, but to add regulations and beef up enforcement of new laws. It's obviously not the best way to deal with your fellow humans, but that's their choice.

Now read those two paragraphs once again and substitute the concept of drugs instead of guns. Let's be honest. This is about prohibition. And people who use 'gun free' countries as their models are in fact the zero-tolerance contingent.

It should be trivially easy to look at something like a War on Guns as just another proxying off of our human abilities to change onto Washington power brokers. But people still need it spelled out. If YOU personally are not going to do the gun control, then you are giving consent to the STATE to do the gun control.

Let's look specifically at the rights of the minority of Americans who are shooters. The first thing lots of people are agitating about now is whether citizens should prove themselves to be mentally competent to own firearms. I suppose that would be like mandatory drug testing, huh? Exactly who is going to do this mental health screening? Gun shop owners? By what standard is this competency going to be assessed? Sounds like a new government sponsored research grants are going to have to go out, and then a new civil service bureaucracy will have to be created - The Ministry of Mental Health. Then when I get my government stamp, I can present it to an authorized dealer who now knows my official, government certified mental classification.

That's not a police state. But it's marginally closer to one than what we have now. What we have now is the social bond and trust by society that the gun owning minority aren't psychopaths. But obviously to the zero-tolerance crew that social bond must be politicized, means-tested, crafted into new law, and administered by the government to be applied to YOU, you gun-loving freak.

Comments

Gun Control, Democratic Hammers & The Marginal Police State

Somebody asked:

In conversations about gun control, some gun control opponents claim that gun control policies will lead America to become a police state. This is generally phrased as a slippery slope to fascism, instead of a plausible explanation for how such a transformation would come about out of our current political environment. I am interested in hearing in concrete terms how gun control regulations would lead to a police state.

This is a difficult one, but one that can be understood in the marginal case. This is not a proof, but an illustration.

First look to the questions by people here in Quora about various angles on gun control you will find 'Why not' questions about law that is already settled. For example, people are asking, why not make bullets illegal instead of guns (or restrict bullets). People have asked, why not make it illegal to be drunk when using a firearm. Already settled. A big question on many minds are means testing for mental illness.

Let's take that last item. But first recall that what we see are the basic energies of political activism. People ask not only because they want answers but they believe, and reasonably so, all things that aren't settled in their minds might become part of a change in policy and in law. In other words, there is a general assumption that more public debate resulting in more regulation can make more sense or people more safe. It is a fundamental assumption of gun control - that there is something you can do with the law through the power and force of the state - that you can change other people's behavior for the better. Notice how this takes the almost singular form of democratic political activism and law, not intellectual persuasion, not social motivation, not religious doctrine, not transcendental discipline.

In other words, those people who want a safer world see democratic political activism and the force of law through the aegis of government as their hammer. And let's not kid ourselves, they don't intend to deregulate, but to add regulations and beef up enforcement of new laws. It's obviously not the best way to deal with your fellow humans, but that's their choice.

Now read those two paragraphs once again and substitute the concept of drugs instead of guns. Let's be honest. This is about prohibition. And people who use 'gun free' countries as their models are in fact the zero-tolerance contingent.

It should be trivially easy to look at something like a War on Guns as just another proxying off of our human abilities to change onto Washington power brokers. But people still need it spelled out. If YOU personally are not going to do the gun control, then you are giving consent to the STATE to do the gun control.

Let's look specifically at the rights of the minority of Americans who are shooters. The first thing lots of people are agitating about now is whether citizens should prove themselves to be mentally competent to own firearms. I suppose that would be like mandatory drug testing, huh? Exactly who is going to do this mental health screening? Gun shop owners? By what standard is this competency going to be assessed? Sounds like a new government sponsored research grants are going to have to go out, and then a new civil service bureaucracy will have to be created - The Ministry of Mental Health. Then when I get my government stamp, I can present it to an authorized dealer who now knows my official, government certified mental classification.

That's not a police state. But it's marginally closer to one than what we have now. What we have now is the social bond and trust by society that the gun owning minority aren't psychopaths. But obviously to the zero-tolerance crew that social bond must be politicized, means-tested, crafted into new law, and administered by the government to be applied to YOU, you gun-loving freak.